Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DECEMBER 2, 2025 Darshan Patil

6.WP.2747.2025.doc

5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner next pointed out that Respondent No. 1 proposed to rectify his earlier order dated 16.03.2020, which could only be rectified till 31.03.2024, because Section 154(7) of the IT Act mandated that no rectification is permissible after the expiry of four years from the end of the Financial Year in which the order sought to be amended/rectified was passed. It was further pointed out that the impugned order is back dated and could not have been passed on 29.03.2024 especially because the same individual who is purported to have passed the order dated 29.03.2024 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 20.06.2024 as to why a rectification order should not be passed, and fixed a time to respond by 1.07.2024. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 1.07.2024 wherein it was, inter alia, pointed out that the proposed action is time barred having regard to the mandate of Section 154(7). It was urged that it was at this stage only that Respondent No. 1 realised his error and, thereafter, hastily took steps to back date the order before 31.03.2024. The back dating of the impugned order is also established by the impugned letter which provides the DIN of the impugned order as being "ITBA/REC/M/154/2024-25/1066567478(1)". The use of the Financial Year 2024-25 in the DIN itself demonstrates that the DIN has been generated only in the Financial Year 2024-25 and hence, the impugned order was passed DECEMBER 2, 2025 Darshan Patil

DECEMBER 2, 2025 Darshan Patil

6.WP.2747.2025.doc

12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers and proceedings. As we delve deeper into the facts it is apparent that this is a case where Respondent No.1 has, in order to protect himself, back dated and manually passed the impugned order only to get over the period of limitation which expired on 31.03.2024.

23. Thus, having regard to the facts narrated earlier, which are not disputed, it is apparent that the only inference that can be drawn is that the impugned order is back dated. It is apparent that the time limit provided for in Section 154(7), viz., a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial Year expired on 31.03.2024, as the order sought to be amended was dated 16.03.2020. The impugned order was not passed till 20.06.2024 as the same Assessing Officer, viz., Mr. Virender Singh who has passed the impugned order allegedly on 29.03.2024, has issued a Show Cause Notice DECEMBER 2, 2025 Darshan Patil

6.WP.2747.2025.doc have never been issued as it is passed without a DIN or; from the fact that the same Officer has issued the Notice under Section 154(3) on 20.06.2024 and he could not have issued the impugned order before 20.06.2024 and he has back dated the order, shows that the impugned order is not valid and should be quashed.

26. As far as the argument of alternate remedy is concerned, the present case is where the impugned order and the impugned letter are ex-facie bad in law and contrary to the procedure laid down in the CBDT Circular and Respondent No. 1 has sought to assume jurisdiction under Section 154 of the IT Act in a manner contrary to law. In these circumstances, the present matter squarely falls within the realm of exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, in other words, an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar where the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.